D&D 5E 07/29/2013 - Legends & Lore It’s Mathemagical!

[Blackwarder]

It definitely feels to me that custom subclasses are part of the "Advanced" game, they might not even make it to the 3 core books, but if they do I agree DMG is better to include Advanced material.

I would much rather have them as part of a separate book, something like an AD&D player companion with advance modules such as subclass creation tools, spell research formulas etc, it will come hand in hand with an AD&D Dungeon Master companion with extra information on world building , more magic items, and so on.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

I would much rather have them as part of a separate book, something like an AD&D player companion with advance modules such as subclass creation tools, spell research formulas etc, it will come hand in hand with an AD&D Dungeon Master companion with extra information on world building , more magic items, and so on.

Warder

I guess it is still too early for WotC team to have planned what goes into which book.

In one way, if they could fit everything they've put in playtest and talked about in L&L into the 3 core books, I would be happy, but OTOH more "modules" in core means inevitably fewer options within each module (fewer spells, feats, classes, races etc), so it's a trade off.

On the strictly gaming side, it feels to me that with regard to subclasses, Basic = a default lowest-complexity subclass for each class, Standard = a set of subclasses to choose from for each class, Advanced = rules for creating your own subclass (e.g. in the form of "weights" and minimum levels for each building block of a subclasses).

But still I have no idea whether all Advanced rules are for supplements or if some of them will be already in the 3 core books, assuming there will be such books at all...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If the DC isn't going to be set once for the caster, than I'd rather we skip setting it by spell level and jump straight to having each spell declare its DC. Then, at least, the designers can be more nuanced in designing spells.

 

[bogmad]

If the DC isn't going to be set once for the caster, than I'd rather we skip setting it by spell level and jump straight to having each spell declare its DC. Then, at least, the designers can be more nuanced in designing spells.

Makes some sense to me. On twitter there seems to be some concern about having to look back and forth to the character sheet to remember DCs and how annoying and problematic that can be for newer players to keep track of,
BUT I find that newer players (and me) tend to look at spell descriptions pretty often when casting, so might as well have the spell DC right there instead of making one shuffle more papers looking back and forth.

 

[Nine Hands]

What if DC did not inherently vary by slot, but some spells could improve the DC for casting in a higher-level slot, just like many currently do with damage? So high-level spells (i.e. high minimum level) would usually have super splashy effects, but the normal DC. Some lower level spells could be cast in higher slots, but they trade the splashy effects off for greater reliability. That actually gives similar spells (but with different minimum level) separate niches while keeping the math simple.

Edit: Clarification about setting the DC.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Which is pretty cool because it still allows low level spells to have a good saving throw difficulty and you can boost it when needed.

I'd love to have all spells function this way, even cantrips (so you can blast someone really good by expending a spell slot to charge up your shocking grasp).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Now, if you're a 5th-level wizard, you can cast Knockdown once per day. If you're a 15th-level wizard, you can cast Lockdown once per day. So we expect that Knockdown will have roughly the same average impact against a 5th-level ogre that Lockdown has against a 15th-level storm giant.

Actually, you raise a good point here, even if it isn't the one you were trying to make. Lower level spells have less effect. It probably should be easier to Knockdown an enemy than Lockdown them.

Perhaps scaling DC based on level should exist, but should go in reverse. That way, choosing to use a fireball at 3rd level makes it harder to resist but does less damage.

The current proposal is to return to the 3E system, albeit with (I hope!) less drastic DC scaling. This is, at best, a solution to one problem that introduces another problem. I certainly don't see any overriding necessity for going with this as opposed to the AD&D approach.

I'm not sure what problem it introduces. I've read your message and I don't see one.

The 3e system works just fine to fix the problem you are talking about. If you are a 5th level Wizard and casting Knockdown on Ogres, their bonuses to save combined with your bonuses to DC give them, as an example, a 60% chance to save against Knockdown.

If you are level 15 and casting Lockdown on a Storm Giant, your bonuses to DC along with their bonuses to save mean they have a 60% chance to save against Lockdown. Therefore Lockdown DOES have the same chance to work on Storm Giants as Knockdown does on Ogres. That's why saves and DCs need to scale at the same rate.

It, on the other hand, has the added benefit of allowing your the spells that aren't Save or X to work better against high level monsters.

For instance, if you are level 10 and cast fireball in 2e against 10 HD creatures, they need an 11 to save vs spell. So the average damage is 26.25 points of damage with a fireball at this level. Meanwhile, a hypothetical Knockdown spell has a 50% chance of affecting 10 HD creatures.

Once you get to level 20, enemies need a 6 to save vs spells. That means the average damage of a fireball is now 21.875. Which means you managed to gain 10 levels but now do less damage with your spells even though your enemies have more hitpoints. You also only have a 25% chance to affect 20 HD creatures with a hypothetical Knockdown spell OR a Lockdown spell.

Also, even though you are now 10 levels above where you were before, you STILL only have a 50% chance of effecting 10 HD creatures with Knockdown and your average damage against them with fireball is still exactly the game, so you haven't even gotten better at defeating low level creatures with any spell you knew while you were low level.

It hurts my suspension of disbelief to get more powerful but to have all my spells get less powerful or stay exactly the same as I go up levels. I like the idea that I'm so powerful at 20th level that my spells now have an 80% chance of effecting weak creatures instead of the 50% chance they had before.

 

[Dausuul]

The 3e system works just fine to fix the problem you are talking about. If you are a 5th level Wizard and casting Knockdown on Ogres, their bonuses to save combined with your bonuses to DC give them, as an example, a 60% chance to save against Knockdown.

If you are level 15 and casting Lockdown on a Storm Giant, your bonuses to DC along with their bonuses to save mean they have a 60% chance to save against Lockdown. Therefore Lockdown DOES have the same chance to work on Storm Giants as Knockdown does on Ogres. That's why saves and DCs need to scale at the same rate.

You're only looking at the chance of success and ignoring the fact that the spells do different things. Knockdown is a moderate inconvenience; Lockdown is a virtual death sentence. If they have the same chance of success, then Lockdown is overall much more effective against a storm giant than Knockdown is against an ogre.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You're only looking at the chance of success and ignoring the fact that the spells do different things. Knockdown is a moderate inconvenience; Lockdown is a virtual death sentence. If they have the same chance of success, then Lockdown is overall much more effective against a storm giant than Knockdown is against an ogre.

True. But you are also much more powerful. One would figure that you could have a greater effect on your enemies at higher level than at lower. That way being a high level wizard has a different feel to it than being a low level wizard.

Either way, that's why I said above that it might be a better idea to have DCs be the inverse of what level they are. At level 20, your level 1 spells might have a DC 9 levels higher than they started at whereas your 9th level spells might be the same as what they started.

So, if your DC is 10+stat modifier, your 9th level spells might be DC 15 while your first level spells are DC 24. That means that if an enemy gets +11 to their saving throw because they are 20th level, you still have a large chance of hitting them with low level spells but high level spells that might kill them outright have a really low chance of working.

The only real problem is this interacts VERY badly with the way damaging spells work. As above, if you do that and prepare a fireball as a 9th level spell, it means your enemies will save against it nearly every time. So, the only way this would make sense is to add back in damage scaling to damaging spells.

Unfortunately, this is all caused by the Vancian spellcasting system, which we appear to be stuck with. I would really like to see a better system where casting a save or die spell meant it succeeded less often than simply doing damage.

 

[Dausuul]

True. But you are also much more powerful. One would figure that you could have a greater effect on your enemies at higher level than at lower. That way being a high level wizard has a different feel to it than being a low level wizard.

So what about a high-level fighter facing an NPC wizard? Does the fighter also get to have a greater effect on his/her enemies? Seems like a bit of Lake Wobegon here, where all the children are above average. The fighter can't be stronger against the wizard and the wizard be stronger against the fighter at the same time.

Or were you suggesting that high-level combat should skew more and more heavily toward offense over defense? That's one way to go, but it tends to result in "whoever wins initiative, wins."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It definitely feels to me that custom subclasses are part of the "Advanced" game, they might not even make it to the 3 core books, but if they do I agree DMG is better to include Advanced material.

Even better.